1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How did the UK become totalitarian police state?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Paul_cz, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 19,260

    If I was attacking anyone it was the self loathing I have of this wretched country.

    I don’t consider being bitter about that as an insult.

    Regardless my only concern was respect for the judiciary in carrying out a trial without people ruining it with their inappropriate behaviour.

    A fair trial cannot happen under such pitiful attempts to pervert the course of justice, regardless of the charges tabled. The cps is having a mighty **** time of it lately with the budget constraints and other government failures, it’s no surprise that cases take a long time or even fail because something was awry.

    Making it harder for them by prejudicing the accused and accusers is not ‘helping’, you only make it easier for the defendants to escape justice (if rightfully accused).

    This is not difficult.
     
  2. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 16,019

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I don't recall using nuclear weapons against Serbia 20 years ago. I don't recall having nuclear weapons. I've even looked behind my fridge and didn't find any.

    If you're talking about the government of the UK, then I'm curious as to how you think the UK illegally used chemical weapons against Serbia 20 years ago without causing a major global furore. I'm also curious as to how you think the UK used nuclear weapons against Serbia 20 years ago without anyone noticing. Nuclear weapons are very noticeable. Consider, for example, the Vela Incident. In 1979, indirect and inconclusive evidence of what might have been a small nuclear weapon used in a very remote part of the ocean far from any inhabited place was detected. It was a major global incident. You're saying that the UK used nuclear weapons on inhabited land in Europe 20 years ago and nothing was said about it. That's rather far-fetched.
     
  3. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,223

    Depleted uranium ammunition was used by the U.K. in the conflict.

    This statement is however factually incorrect. It was reported in the U.K. press.

    edit. B.B.C, Guardian & Independent all ran the story.

    The question is therefore why you would assume its the case?

    Whats the source? It clearly has an agenda.

    Indeed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  4. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,616

    Location: Canada

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1QW1ZH

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.the...es-investigation-international-criminal-court

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47822839

    Etc etc.

    I remember reading at least one of those articles last month...

    I totally agree with the hypocrisy regarding the ICC though. It’s things like that* that just give ammunition to the idea that it’s the “west” trying to punish those they don’t like.

    *Restricting visas and the extreme pressure/defunding going on if the ICC start investigating the “wrong” things.
     
  5. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,826

    Location: Vvardenfell

    What? DU shells are the exact opposite of nuclear weapons. You do understand what has been depleted, don't you? The U235 - the radioactive bit. You can certainbly get heavy metal poisoning from breathing in the dust of a DU shell, but if you are close enough to be able to breathe the dust, and alive enough to do so, then you will be too busy thanking your local God that the shell didn't kill you to think about anything else. The shell is about as radioactive as living in Cornwall.
     
  6. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 16,019

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I think that classifying depleted uranium ammunition as a chemical and nuclear weapon is dubious and misleading. Being consistent would also require classifying lead ammunition as a chemical weapon, since lead is also toxic. You would also have to classify throwing rocks as using nuclear weapons, as there are rocks that are more radioactive than depleted uranium.
     
  7. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,522

    Quite.

    DU is used because it is very dense and also (perhaps surprisingly for many people who have an assumption that heavy metals are soft) very hard.

    A DU anti tank round is basically a very heavy, very hard, arrow that can punch through steel Armour like a hot needle through butter and then bounce around inside turning any and all within to slurry.

    It also burns quite nicely.

    The fact that is is also mildly radioactive and chemically toxic is irrelevant to its actual intended military purpose.
     
  8. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,223

    I don't disagree. The claim was a very serious one in regard to standards of evidence, culpability on behalf of the British public, an attack on the legal system and highly critical of the British media.

    You would think given the criticism aimed at the British public here and the media that you would practice what you preach.

    The stern warning about indoctrination and complacency leading to authoritarianism was particularly ironic given the the rhetorical tactics which are straight out of the banana republic play book.

    The deployment of disgust another. Its the totalitarian emotion of choice. Characteristic emotional control lever used by authoritarian states.

    'They' are morally disgusting and corrupt, 'they' seek to undermine truth, it is the only tactic 'they' have. 'They' are corrupt and complacent, and when confronted with truth all 'they' can do is hate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  9. Double07

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 10, 2006

    Posts: 1,096

    Location: Scotland

    TLDR: It didn't.
     
  10. =XDC=FluphyBunny

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 16, 2010

    Posts: 4,455

    Location: North East England

    The ****** that some people believe is astounding. The only thing I can conclude is many people don’t know what a totalitarian state is.
     
  11. Zethor

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2013

    Posts: 4,294

    Oh they know what it is but after years of circle-jerking in various online echo chambers, they are hopeless victims of confirmation bias and utterly convinced that anything related to political correctness, minorities or gun laws are expressions of totalitarianism.
     
  12. Poneros

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 18, 2015

    Posts: 2,977

  13. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,826

    Location: Vvardenfell

    That's not big brother, just lazy. The Holy Grail of policing is machines that can do the work and save money. Problem is, facial recognition is currently pants. Pretty much every ID so far has been a false positive. That is, entirely innocent people detected as wanted crims. And if you think the fact that you are innocent will help you, think again. At the very least you will be sitting in an interview room for a couple of hours. And G*d knows what database you are now on.
     
  14. Johno please?

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 9, 2005

    Posts: 3,782

    Location: Swindon

    Well when people are arrested for saying "offensive" things on the internet its not good is it, we're obviously not a totalitarian state but we also dont really have freedom of expression either.
     
  15. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,826

    Location: Vvardenfell

    Freedm of expression has always had caveats. And making offensive remarks has pretty much always been one of them. How far should a freedom to bully go?
     
  16. Paul_cz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,371

    Your signature is apt to your mentality
     
  17. No1newts

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 24, 2009

    Posts: 19,401

    Location: North East

    Freedom of expression is limited when it comes to being offensive to others, threatening others or impinging their rights (just google FoE under EU law) this is entirely normal.

    Also it doesn't matter if it is on the net or in person as so many people communicate through the internet these days saying things such as "it is just the internet" doesn't wash.
     
  18. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,826

    Location: Vvardenfell


    My signature is a quote. It's even screen-dumped in its original form to help you. If you think you can get any inkling about my politics from it then you need to rethink.

    Also you didn't answer my question: how far should freedom to bully extend? Are rape threads free speech? Death threats?
     
  19. Johno please?

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 9, 2005

    Posts: 3,782

    Location: Swindon

    I'm not on about threatening people, im on about people being arrested for making jokes and quoting lyrics, that kind of sillyness. I would have thought people in this thread would have educated themselves on the issue :confused:

    Being offensive is vague anyway, taking offense is based on feelings, and feelings are personal, so who decides what is offensive and what isnt?

    "Islam is utter non sense" many muslims would find that "offensive" should that be illegal?
     
  20. Johno please?

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 9, 2005

    Posts: 3,782

    Location: Swindon

    Hurting someones feelings should be of no interest to the state, its as simple as that.